DD5: However, a proper analogy would be as follows: The girl by some means, permanently attaches herself physically to your body living off you parasitically and there is no possible way to ever expel her without killing her.
However, a proper analogy would be as follows: The girl by some means, permanently attaches herself physically to your body living off you parasitically and there is no possible way to ever expel her without killing her.
nice put.
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
The girl is only an intruder if you do not consent to here presence and she refuses to leave.
She is an intruder by her presence on your property without your consent. It is irrelevent if whe is willing to leave or not. Untill she is gone she is an intruder.
Also, proportional reaction and response to property violators is another issue. I don't believe there is a formula you can use to figure out what is appropriate and what is not. The market would have to sort out what is acceptable and what is not
I believe we could safely make some guesses as to what would be permitted.
I see some problems with your analogy. The girl would not need to permanently attach herself to you physically. Because there is nothing permanent about pregnancy in about 9 months the baby (trespasser) will leave.
A physical attachment is irrelevent. If trespasser chains himself to your front door you do not have the right to kill them (there are other non lethal ways to deal with him). Lethal force is not justified unless he threatens your life. This is the same as pregnancy... there are ways of removing the baby without killing or dismembering the child.
There is nothing parasitic about pregnancy. It is a misuse of the word. Biologically speaking it is a symbiotic relationship. To describe it any other way is dishonest. With that said the woman should have the right to end the relationship at any point. But the methods that she can employ can and should be limited. Just as with any other relationship.
DD5 wrote the following post at 05-13-2011 12:32 AM:
Jees, why didn't you just say so? Did anyone tell you that you're quite defensive when talking about this subject? So. Your position, if I understand you correctly, is that you can remove an invader from your property with limitless force regardless of the intentions, motives, knowledge, or even free will of the invader. In the case of a baby. It is not only completely innocent and unaware of its intrusion, it is impossible for it to stop its own "aggression". Therefore, the only way to stop the supposed "aggression" of the innocent baby, the mother or a third party must aggress against the baby and kill it. While it is true that a baby cannot give consent it is often assumed in libertarian thought that when in doubt, the answer is no (I can give examples if you insist.). So. You have stated that the baby is aggressing against the mother against the mothers consent, and that is why the babies rights are not worth consideration. The baby, however, is clearly not aggressing as it is innocent by any definition of the term. Would you please tell me what you think qualifies as aggressing?
Seraiah: DD5 wrote the following post at 05-13-2011 12:32 AM: "[The value of human life is not an underlying assumption of libertarian philosophy.]"
You have misquoted me. It is either disingenuous or very careless of you.
Seraiah:t is impossible for it to stop its own "aggression".
This is irrelevant. Look, as I told you before. This debate is over values. I have no interest to debate values. You can't argue values. Libertarianism is not a philosophy that grantees some ideal moral code or anything like that. There are no prefect solutions to such difficult problems, but I believe a free society will achieve far better results. Most states don't ban abortion. On the contrary, they finance it and make people like you pay for it. States that have banned it received a very painful lesson in "unintended" consequences of State interventionism.
i find pro-life libertarians aggravating since they go out of their way to make it seem like all libertarians agree with them, an appeal to majority where no consensus even exists. this drives away people who end up thinking libertarians are no different from hypocritical conservatives who protest big government except when theyre telling people how to live their lives. not to mention that they dont explain how exactly a prohibition on abortion can be enforced without government coercion. i cant tell you how many times ive had this discussion with Christian libertarians, and it inevitably leads to "But Ron Paul is pro-life!", as if that should mean anything/explain everything. when someone asks me my position on the issue, i just quote Rand and Rothbard, since they explain my personal feelings with such eloquence: "The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic 'invader' of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as 'murder' of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers." -Murray Rothbard "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” -Ayn Rand
i find pro-life libertarians aggravating since they go out of their way to make it seem like all libertarians agree with them, an appeal to majority where no consensus even exists. this drives away people who end up thinking libertarians are no different from hypocritical conservatives who protest big government except when theyre telling people how to live their lives. not to mention that they dont explain how exactly a prohibition on abortion can be enforced without government coercion. i cant tell you how many times ive had this discussion with Christian libertarians, and it inevitably leads to "But Ron Paul is pro-life!", as if that should mean anything/explain everything. when someone asks me my position on the issue, i just quote Rand and Rothbard, since they explain my personal feelings with such eloquence:
"The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic 'invader' of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as 'murder' of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers." -Murray Rothbard
"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn). Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” -Ayn Rand
DD5 "You have misquoted me. It is either disingenuous or very careless of you." It was a bracket quote. However, if it was not the jist of what you were saying, then please restate more clearly? Though if that's not what you said, then being against abortion to defend the babies life shouldn't be an "arbitrary value". DD5 "This is irrelevant." You said it was relevant just a few posts ago. You said that the childs rights should not be considered because the child is the aggressor. I refuted that argument by stating that a baby in the womb cannot possibly be considered an aggressor. If you did not say that a childs rights should not be considered because he or she is an aggressor, then could you please restate your point more clearly? DD5 "I have no interest to debate values." It seemed to me that you didn't want to bring the value of life into the discussion, so I remained inside your own framework IE: Property Rights. Property rights are in fact a value, but we aren't debating the value, what I'm debating is the idea that a childs property rights should be ignored in favor of the mother in all circumstances. If I have at all misunderstood or didn't state your position correctly please clarify. James C quoting Ayn Rand "An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being." Please define what an "actual being" is (or Ayn Rand's definition). I was once a fetus, you were once a fetus. We are "actual beings" as far as I'm aware. James C quoting Murray Rothbard "every woman has the absolute right to her own body" If this were true then a woman inside the womb would also have absolute right to her own body. So it must not be true. I thought this was Hoppe's argument. Wasn't. ha.
What if the woman is raped AND it's a risky pregnancy AND she wants to keep the baby? Does the abortion industry have economies of scale, just like the medical OB/GYN industry? Did women with risky pregnancies prior to her create experience for only one of the industries? She didn't want to conceive, but once she did, she wanted to keep the baby. Now what?
Now on to a reply to everyone in and out of the thread...
Brian LaSorsa: I know. Uh-oh. Just hear me out. Aside from the morality arguments regarding abortion, many people oppose it not only due to religion but because they view it as murder and an act of force/aggression. How would the laws be formed in an anarcho-capitalist society if some people do see it that way? Would abortion opposers have a right to use violence against those performing/desiring an abortion, calling it a type of defense for a fetus that cannot fight back itself? Again, this isn't about the morality involving abortion, it's just about what would happen. The Nazis thought killing Jews wasn't necessarily 'murder', but clearly it is. How would this play out?
I know. Uh-oh. Just hear me out.
Aside from the morality arguments regarding abortion, many people oppose it not only due to religion but because they view it as murder and an act of force/aggression.
How would the laws be formed in an anarcho-capitalist society if some people do see it that way? Would abortion opposers have a right to use violence against those performing/desiring an abortion, calling it a type of defense for a fetus that cannot fight back itself? Again, this isn't about the morality involving abortion, it's just about what would happen. The Nazis thought killing Jews wasn't necessarily 'murder', but clearly it is.
How would this play out?
When a fetus is clearly living, whether discerned through instrumental measurement or simple observation, it has the right to its life. This is plainly and simply in accordance with natural rights. If the mother wants to kill her unborn child, what is the difference between that and killing her child that is born? According to natural rights, there is absolutely no difference.
Brian LaSora:Would abortion opposers have a right to use violence against those performing/desiring an abortion, calling it a type of defense for a fetus that cannot fight back itself?
The fetus has no recourse—it isn't an individual, and it isn't capable of conscious intelligence-driven behavior, so it has no natural rights.
Nobody else has any recourse—they don't own the fetus as property. The mother owns the fetus as a matter of fact (it's part of her) and of necessity (it's within her and dependent on her continued support). Her choice to abort is flawlessly righteous (morally and legally).
As an aside, the idea that aborting a fetus is "bad" or "wrong" results from the tendency of homo sapiens to project their experiences onto everything. So they imagine a fetus consciously experiencing some kind of physical pain, or somehow being sad and emotionally destroyed as it's aborted, which is totally silly. The idea that a fetus is consciously aware right when it's born is ridiculous enough, but to say it's consciously aware near the end of gestation is over the top.
As another aside, the idea that anyone can use violence on behalf of people who either A) don't give them that authority or B) don't have that authority to give in the first place, is one of those libertarian mind numbingly nonsensical ideas that scares the hell out of me. Those kinds of crackpots are just looking for opportunities to use violence.
I'm anti abortion here...
I agree that force against the fetus is unjustified, yes the mother has a right to her own body, but if the fetus the mothers body? The fetus is another entity in itself.
Maybe a technology will arise where instead of aborting a fetus, you can transfer it to a surrogate mother. Im not sure if this is even possible but it might work.
/2cents
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
I never understood why people cared so much about a lump of cells.
:/
I agree that force against the fetus is unjustified
But who cares? In an ancap society, nobody has any natural rights that entitle them to do anything about it.
And yet, it's not unjustified. Ancapism is based on the natural law theory of rights. In this theory, an individual capable of conscious action has rights. A fetus is neither an individual nor consciously acting. To think that killing it—even soon after birth—is comparable to killing a consciously aware human is downright silly and demonstrates projecting of ones own thoughts values onto something incapable of similar thoughts or values.
Probably because they ARE a lump of cells.
^Good point.